In libertarian and other pro-freedom circles, one of the unquestioned
and most beloved holy scriptures is Mr. Jefferson's oft quoted
observation, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty." For years, I
have cited this quotation like it was a given fact. Although I suspect
some disagree, I don't recall anyone taking issue with the "wisdom" of
this particular observation. However, I have come to realize Mr.
Jefferson was wrong on this point.

With full knowledge of engaging in libertarian heresy, and with all due
respect to Mr. Jefferson, I will endeavor to correct Mr. Jefferson's
observation by recasting his quotation thusly, "In order for a free and
just society to both arise and be maintained, there must be an
equilibrium of mutual peace and respect between the people and the
government." Given how far away we currently are from a free and just
society, it is hard to imagine a set of circumstances where there could
exist a mutual peace and respect between the people and the government.

Indeed, our government today is such a routine and massive violator of
peace and freedom concepts that we can barely imagine a situation where
principled people, who revere peace and freedom, would actually respect
the government. Further, we can hardly imagine a situation where the
government actually respects and serves the people and truly advances
the cause of peace and freedom. If we are ever going to realize and
sustain a free and peaceful society, we cannot be so jaded by the sad
history and current reality of government that we cannot envision what
is necessary to bring about the society we so desire.

At risk of appearing to engage in even more libertarian heresy, I will
also insist that peace officers are not only necessary to a free
society, but are engaged in a profession worthy of the highest respect
from libertarians. I realize some self-proclaimed or jaded libertarians
will want to tar and feather me for merely suggesting peace officers are
worthy of respect from libertarians. However, the more astute
libertarian reader will have already noticed I intentionally used the
word "peace" officer instead of "police" officer.

As with so many problems on our planet, a failure to define terms is
often at the root cause of the disagreement. I define "peace officers"
as those police officers who, knowingly or unknowingly, comply with
libertarian principles. They became police officers to protect peaceful
people from those who seek to initiate force or fraud against others. As
contrasted with "law enforcement officers" who strictly enforce all
laws equally regardless of their justness, peace officers are the good
guys and gals.

In a truly free and just society, there would be no need to distinguish
between "peace officers" and "law enforcement officers" as all laws
would be just in any event. Said another way, strict enforcement of all
laws would merely be a confirmation and ratification of the
non-aggression principle. In such a free and just society, respect for
police officers and even politicians, prosecutors, judges, and the
military would be obvious and warranted; as all actions taken would be
consistent with the non-aggression principle. Such a government would
have no reason to fear the people. To the contrary, such a government
would be loved and revered by a people who love and revere peace and
freedom. Imagine a patriotic libertarian society! It would actually be
the "land of the free" in reality instead of the "land of the
incarcerated" we have today.

I can almost hear the groans of uneasiness coming from some of my
libertarian friends after reading the preceding paragraph. However, it
is incorrect to simply state libertarians and other pro-freedom people
oppose the government. To state it more precisely, libertarians and
other pro-freedom people oppose all coercion. I realize almost
everything the government currently does involves coercion. However, it
does not necessarily have to be so. To the extent government simply
protects people from having force or fraud initiated against them, it
acts without coercion. Although funding for such non-coercive government
activities must also be accomplished non-coercively, a theoretical
libertarian government could properly exist. We should focus our efforts
on opposing all coercion.

Although Mr. Jefferson is correct in observing tyranny exists when the
people fear the government, he is wrong when he asserts freedom exists
when the government fears the people. In such a case, there is something
wrong with the government or with the people.

Mr. Jefferson's vision of a government which fears the people is not
only inconsistent with a truly free society, but it is also
unsustainable. A government which truly fears the people will be
irresistibly attracted to ideas and actions which modify that imbalance.
The temptation to invent wars, endless crises, or to simply grab more
power will be ever present. A society in which both sides fear one
another may arise. In any event, freedom and peace will certainly be
short lived.

Politicians who fear losing re-election campaigns act the same way.
Rather than risk criticism for "doing nothing while in office" or
whether they simply feel a need to justify their existence as
politicians, they believe such wars and crises help justify their
existence and re-elections. A truly pro-freedom population expects
politicians to adhere to their only legitimate mission; preserving
liberty. As such, a quiet political existence should be revered.

We ought to strive to achieve a harmonic balance of mutual respect
between the government and the people if we really want to achieve a
just society that has longevity. As with most things, this cannot be
legislated. Only when enough hearts and minds are won over to truly
support freedom will we have an opportunity at a longstanding free
society.

Chances are good you are still part of the problem. Yes, you! You are
probably a pretend freedom advocate. I already know you claim to support
freedom. Almost everyone claims to be in favor of freedom. Many thugs
engage in their anti-freedom activities while proclaiming they are for
"freedom and democracy." Is this you?

If your definition of freedom is like most people, in that you
absolutely support the rights of others to engage in activities you
yourself engage in or approve of, you are indeed part of the problem.
Real advocates of freedom support the rights of other competent adults
to engage in any peaceful activity they so choose; especially when they
themselves do not personally engage in or even approve of such activity.
Those are the real freedom advocates. For example: I'm always more
impressed by the non-marijuana smoker who supports the rights of
competent adults to peacefully smoke marijuana than I am by the hippie,
pot head, making the same argument.

If you are a pretend freedom advocate, I invite you to consider
graduating into the real freedom advocate crowd. It is easier said than
done. When you support the rights of other competent adults to
peacefully engage in acts you morally oppose, you have graduated. Until
then, you remain part of the problem.

Real freedom advocates ought to employ whatever skills, passions,
interests, money and influence possible to help bring about a free and
peaceful society. It's not a legal obligation and it shouldn't be one.
However, I wonder if there isn't some moral obligation to at least try
to help improve the human condition.

Even in today's world, there are peace officers and other freedom
advocates working inside unjust systems. In my relatively extensive
international travels, and in my vast experience as a practicing
criminal defense attorney, I have had many interactions with people
wearing badges, carrying guns, and having official titles who are real
freedom advocates. They help promote or advance freedom in many ways.
They exist all over the world, and in many different positions. I
suspect you also have met some of these people and haven't even realized
they are real freedom advocates.

The true measure of how many people throughout the world are real
freedom advocates, or are just a short conversation away from becoming
real freedom advocates, is unknown. I suspect it is much greater than
you think.

Fear isn't a necessary prerequisite for freedom. Indeed, fear is
incompatible with freedom. We should not be content whether the people
fear the government or if the government fears the people.

Although progress towards a free society, and even a free world, is
excruciatingly slow and not without setbacks, there is progress
nonetheless. As an international matter, the world is now generally much
less tolerant of things like war, torture, religious intolerance,
suppression of peaceful dissent and coercion as a whole, than it was
hundreds of years ago. Indeed, recent progress has been almost shocking,
when measured as a whole, since humans have been evolving. In many
ways, we have come a long way in a few hundred years.

I recently had lunch in Berlin with a fellow attorney who was raised and
educated in the Socialist Italian legal system. We spent hours together
discussing freedom and economics. I found him to be as principled a
libertarian and man of peace as I have ever met. Although he lives and
works in Europe, he reviews various libertarian websites on a regular
basis. It was a wonderful and energizing experience. I expect we will
remain friends and partners in advocating for freedom.

At risk of being criticized for being too optimistic, I can honestly
assert that, even in the United States, there are signs things are
moving in the right direction. Our inhumane war on people who use
unsanctioned drugs is slowly coming to an end. A real libertarian, Dr.
Ron Paul, was actually in several presidential debates. Among youngsters
and the military, his libertarian ideas resonated. Further, it appears
Senator Rand Paul is gaining popularity promoting the same libertarian
ideas.

Although it won't be pretty, our empire is destined to suffer a giant
economic collapse. Maybe our nation's failure to learn about economic
realities from the collapse of the Soviet Union will not be repeated
after our mostly Socialist economy collapses. Many Russians now value
Capitalism and it appears to be thriving in Estonia.

I have personally visited these former Soviet Union countries. There are
many pro-Capitalist and pro-freedom people now living in the former
Soviet Union. That I am free to travel there, and to what used to be
East Germany, speaks for itself. It is easy to be optimistic when freely
and peacefully standing next to what used to be the Berlin Wall. It
warmed my heart.

For those who choose to be optimistic about the prospects for freedom,
there are lots of ways to support the position. Although Mr. Jefferson
was wrong about the necessity of "fear" in the calculation for achieving
a free society, his great legacy of being a well-intentioned freedom
advocate survives. What will your legacy be on our shared road to
freedom?

My mistake. Ron Paul, once he realized how much he had been forced to at least BEND his Oath of Office, worked as hard as he could to get all of Government to change their ways. So we DO have ONE good politician we can look up to. And more of them would be the likes of Ernie and his people.

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 7/31/2013 3:58:43 PM

In Jefferson's day, people got into Government to organize ALL the people so that they ALL would be protected from King George and his armies. Jefferson's Government feared the people in the sense that they were afraid that if they didn't act in ways that truly benefited the people, the people would see through it all, and would totally collapse the Government. Then King George would step in and overrun them all.

These days, even if a politician truly wants to benefit the people by getting into Government, he almost certainly knows that he is required to break his Oath of Office, thereby lying to the people, just to get into office. If he doesn't realize that fact, he isn't really fit to be running for office. What he doesn't have is fear of the people, except a little when election time comes around. And it takes a really good politician to be truly running for the benefit of the people, fearing that if he loses, all the good he could do for the people will not have been done.

So you see? Jefferson was right... just not in the way that we normally think. Why don't we think that way? Because our TOTAL experience is with corrupt politicians that are a hundred times worse than King George. And we don't have any experience with truly honest politicians in Government, who are truly out to benefit the people.

Comment by TL Winslow

Entered on: 7/31/2013 3:12:27 PM

[[In a truly free and just society, there would be no need to distinguish
between "peace officers" and "law enforcement officers" as all laws
would be just in any event.]]

Duh, Jefferson wasn't wrong, he could just read, in this case Thomas More's 1516 work "Utopia", which means NO SUCH PLACE :)

Learn the complete history of economic thought the power way with the Historyscoper, free: